Creationists are ‘liars’?

CMI ^ | Tas Walker, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

Creationists are ‘liars' (?): Geologist Donald Prothero doesn’t like the fact that we don’t agree with his ideas on evolution.

I love the attitude some evolutionists have toward professional, scientific debate. Because creationist scientists do not agree with their biased, subjective and unsubstantiated ideas they spit the dummy and call us liars.

The latest tirade from geologist Donald Prothero is in an opinion piece in NewScientist entitled ‘Evolution: What missing link?’¹ I like that title.

His article was picked up by the Telegraph newspaper in the UK which reported, ‘Creationists “peddle lies about the fossil record”.’²

Lies? Are creationists really lying?

No!

It’s just that Prothero does not like the fact that we don’t agree with his ideas. It upsets him so much that he describes creationists in this way: ...

[metmom]

I am concerned with you supporting your contention that there was somehow this vast population of non-Roman or Byzantine Catholic Christians.

FWIW, ....

The Catholic Church didn't come into existence until the third century. Any population of Christians would have been of necessity non-Roman Catholic or non-Byzantine.

Throughout the Middle East and North Africa and the Roman Empire.

Who were they?

Ordinary people; Jews, Gentiles, Romans.

Where did they go?

They probably died like everybody else. What other kind of answer are you looking for because that question makes no sense?

There were seven churches mentioned in the Book of Revelation and they all died out, but Christianity continued. It doesn't need a church to do that.

[allmendream]

So saying an individual is acting like a fool is tantamount to condemning an entire Christian Church to hell based upon them having a different view of Christian theology?

I don't hate you, or condemn you to hell.

The Bible says nothing about a vast population of “hidden” Christians that existed for over a thousand years that outnumbered the Roman and Byzantine Catholic Christian populations.

Once again you provide no source for your contention.

The historic fact is that for the majority of the Christian era, the vast majority of Christians were either Roman or Byzantine Catholic.

[metmom]

Nothing in the Bible speaks of a vast population of Christians of antiquity that were neither Roman or Byzantine Catholic.

And nothing in the Bible speaks of a vast population of Christians of antiquity that were either Roman or Byzantine Catholic.

There is also indication that the apostle Thomas founded a church in India. Which would be another population of Christians in the first century.

[metmom]

That’s presuming that they were Christians in the first place.

[demshateGod]

If the Christians decided to do that, would you follow? If not, then you’re not after the truth, just arguments.

But her point is valid. “Scientist” are telling little kids, at my expense, that what they have is factual science. When I teach kids about the Bible, at my own expense, I tell them it’s faith. Not that faith has no substance. In fact, it’s the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

[count-your-change]

““What is Cladistics
Lynne M. Clos
.........Derived characters are advanced traits which only appear in some members of the group. Cladistics is based on the assumption that the appearance of derived characters gives clues to evolutionary relationships. In our example, a derived character for some mammals might be loss of the tail, which occurs in the great apes and man. It is assumed that loss of the tail occurred only once, in the common ancestor of apes and man, and that none of us has one because we inherited that trait from our common ancestor. Thus if mammals are separated into groups which do and which don't have a tail, shown by a fork on the evolutionary diagram (cladogram), this represents the point at which a new species evolved which didn't have a tail. Man and the great apes are assumed to have descended from this species (which may or may not remain undiscovered at the present time).”

No DNA necessary, as this NON-CREATIONIST POINTS OUT.

Darwinists not Creationists must misrepresent science out of necessity. See your own citation.

Tell me again about those courses you say you took. No, don't, I said I've no more time for your erroneous assertions and I don't.

[Misterioso]

Do you teach kids that the Bible is the truth?

[demshateGod]

Are you sure the Bible says nothing of them? The church at Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. There were other churches that predated Constantine’s church. Galatia, Corinth, Macedonia, Rome, Colosae, Jerusalem, Damascus, etc. The churches that existed under the intense persecution of the Pope were after the closed canon. Ah ha! Are you talking about the Apocrypha? I don’t doubt there’s nothing in those books.

It’s hard to find but I’ve given you some already and you rejected it. The truth hurts and religion is a good antidote.

[demshateGod]

Of course I teach my faith as truth. And I don’t even get any tax dollars for it.

[metmom]

You know, for all the evos scorn appeal to authority when it’s perceived as done by creationists, evos sure like to do it themselves.

Your bringing the Pope into every debate about whether Christians can believe in evolution is totally irrelevant to it.

Those outside the Roman Catholic church do not recognize the authority of the pope over anything but the Roman Catholic church. He has no authority over anyone else and nobody else recognizes him speaking on behalf of God.

To non-Catholics, he’s just another man; just as sinful and just an fallible as any other person on this planet, and just as in need of salvation through Christ.

Dragging the pope into these discussions as if his opinion on evolution has any real significance to what others believe is an exercise in futility and a waste of time.

All it’s going to do is start anther *Are Catholics real Christians* argument as it did on this thread, as it has done on every thread on which it’s been pulled in the past, and as I have very little doubt that you knew would happen yet again.

Here’s a newsflash for all the Catholics who think that the Pope’s opinion on evolution means something to non-Catholics..... It doesn’t.

Now if you want to use that as some sort of validation of your belief that you can believe in evolution over what the Bible teaches and still feel like you’re accepted by God, have at it. That’s certainly your prerogative, but don’t expect it to carry any weight with non-Catholics.

[allmendream]

Except she didn't point out that no DNA was necessary, that is your misrepresentation.

She is explaining what a “Clade” is for someone who, as she explains in the introductory paragraph, might be confused by all that scientific jargon. Nowhere does she say YOUR idiotic contention that the groups are both formed and confirmed by the same morphological traits, or that no DNA analysis was necessary.

Moreover your source is this...

http://www.fossilnews.com/1996/cladistics.html

A laymans guide to ‘making it simple’. Do you often base the current status of a science on your own misunderstanding of what a scientists says when she is trying to simplify something for the layman?

That is typical of creationists. All they can do is take something out of context in an effort to mischaracterize the actual science.

Modern cladograms are not both based upon and confirmed by morphological features, they are based upon a shared evolutionary characteristic and CONFIRMED by DNA analysis, which is, despite your assertions otherwise, not subjective.

[demshateGod]

That’s an excellent point and worth taking note of the next time I get baited. The Pope’s wrong. Though he can quote all 66 books of the canonized scripture plus the 385 Apocrypha, he’s still wrong on what it says.

[count-your-change]

First you must believe the tooth is out there.

[allmendream]

Except that you don't recognize that my argument isn't in any way an appeal to authority, as neither you nor I look to the Pope as a spiritual authority.

I use the example of the Pope to show the blind fanaticism of many of the cretarded set and to do a “reducto ad absurdum” argument, reducing their hateful argument to its (ill)logical conclusion - the Pope is going to Hell.

They say ‘you cannot be a Christian and accept Evolution’ or one of a thousand permutations of the same zealot argument of ‘Agree with me or you are going to go to Hell’.

I point out the Pope's view on evolution and ask them if they consider the Pope a Christian.

If they don't consider the Pope a Christian, and think Pope John Paul II is burning in hell as we speak; well to me (and to many others I imagine) it takes a bit of the sting out of their accusation that I too will share that fate. At least I will be in good company! ;)

[allmendream]

I am sure the Bible doesn't say that they existed for a thousand years and outnumbered the populations of the Western and Eastern Roman Empire for the more than thousand years that the two were the vast majority of Christians.

For the majority of the Christian era, the overwhelming majority of Christians were either Roman or Byzantine Catholic. That is simply a matter of history, despite how it might rub your anti-Catholicism the wrong way.

The only Christian populations that I can think of that existed for long enough in high enough numbers to even creep into that Catholic majority are the Armenians and the Copts. And while they existed for long enough, they never existed in sufficient numbers to challenge the Catholic majority.

For the majority of the Christian era, the majority of Christians were either Roman or Byzantine Catholics.

Still holding out hope for Prester John, or do you not even know who he was supposed to be?

[demshateGod]

I don’t know who Prester John is supposed to be.
How do you define Christian? A bunch of people on some guys roles who partakes in mass now and then and helps an old lady across the street does not a Christian make.

[metmom]

I use the example of the Pope to show the blind fanaticism of many of the cretarded set and to do a “reducto ad absurdum” argument, reducing their hateful argument to its (ill)logical conclusion - the Pope is going to Hell.

It's baiting.

They say ‘you cannot be a Christian and accept Evolution’ or one of a thousand permutations of the same zealot argument of ‘Agree with me or you are going to go to Hell’.

Follow this logic. The Bible is the Word of God. It is true. Someone who believes in God believes what He says and that His word is true.

Jesus spoke of creation and the Flood and other events in the OT as true. Peter did as well, as did other writers of the NT.

If you're going to say that they aren't true and didn't really happen, you are going to have to either call the Bible a lie, or Jesus a liar, or the writers of the Bible liars.

The problem most creationists have with this is the how someone who calls themselves a Christian, which means they claim to have believed and trusted Christ for salvation, can say that Jesus lied about what He spoke about.

That is a just too much of a stretch for someone who claims to believe God. If you believe that He is who He said He is, then you must take Him as His word.

If you pick and choose what parts you want to believe and don't trust that all of it is true, then there's no basis for believing that ANY of it is true.

If it's not reliable enough to trust in some parts, how does one reconcile the belief that it's reliable enough to believe for salvation?

It's not a matter of believing in evolution will send one to hell. It's a matter of the person claiming to be a Christian and not believing God.

[metmom]

For the majority of the Christian era, the overwhelming majority of Christians were either Roman or Byzantine Catholic. That is simply a matter of history, despite how it might rub your anti-Catholicism the wrong way.

You can't say that with certainty because you don't know if any individual is a Christian or not.

The overwhelming majority of Catholics are Catholic, nothing more and nothing less.

You can't define them as Christian by virtue of the fact that they're Catholic because denominations do not Christians make.

One is a Christian based on their relationship with Christ, not church affiliation or membership. Therefore you cannot say that most Christians are Catholics.

[celmak]

Before I adopt that criteria as being a valid test of whether someone should be considered a scientist or not, I want to examine it on it's merits and see if it holds true. If it does not, then I have to ask why you've chosen to adopt it, and why you think I should.

So when you finally figure out whether or not it holds true...

I wait with bated breath.

[count-your-change]

I think the illustration Jesus gave in Matthew 13:24-44 shows that both true and false Christians would exist along side one another like darnel growing amidst the wheat until the harvest time.

Until that harvest time it would not be possible to separate the one from the other.